Inclusion in the global innovation system for CRISPR salmon in Norway

References

• Archibald, T. 2018. Target, delete, repair: CRISPR is a gene-editing tool that’s revolutionary, though not without risk. http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2018winter/CRISPR-for-gene-editing-is-revolutionary-but-it-comes-with-risks.html (accessed 12 March 2023)
   Google Scholar
• Arocena, R., Göransson, B. & Sutz, J. 2018. Inclusive innovation systems and policies. Arocena, R., Göransson, B. & Sutz, J. (eds.) Developmental Universities in Inclusive Innovation Systems: Alternatives for Knowledge Democratization in the Global South, 93–137. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64152-2_5
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, J.L. & Eggereide, S.S. 2020. Indicating sustainable salmon farming: The case of the new Norwegian aquaculture management scheme. Marine Policy 117: Article 103925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binz, C. & Truffer, B. 2017. Global innovation systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Research Policy 46(7), 1284–1298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binz, C. & Truffer, B. 2020. The governance of global innovation systems: Putting knowledge in context. Glückler, J., Herrigel, G. & Handke, M. (eds.), Knowledge for Governance, 397–414. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47150-7_17
   Google Scholar
• Blok, V., Hoffmans, L. & Wubben, E.F.-M. 2015. Stakeholder engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector: Critical issues and management practices. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15(2), 147–164.
   Google Scholar
• Brand, T. & Blok, V. 2019. Responsible innovation in business: A critical reflection on deliberative engagement as a central governance mechanism. Journal of Responsible Innovation 6(1), 4–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brossard, D., Belluck, P., Gould, F. & Wirz, C.D. 2019. Promises and perils of gene drives: Navigating the communication of complex, post-normal science 116(16), 7692–7697.
   Google Scholar
• Callegari, B. & Mikhailova, O. 2021. RRI and corporate stakeholder engagement: The Aquadvantage salmon case. Sustainability 13(4): Article 4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, L. & Morgan, K. 2020. Evolving geographies of innovation: Existing paradigms, critiques and possible alternatives. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 74(1), 13–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dankel, D.J. 2018. ‘Doing CRISPR’: The novel case of Atlantic salmon, science and industry. Politics and the Life Sciences 37(2), 220–235.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Approach for a Sustainable Blue Economy in the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:240:FIN (accessed 12 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• EY. 2020. EY report reveals the latest aquaculture and fishing industry trend. https://www.ey.com/en_no/strategy-transactions/ey-report-reveals-the-latest-aquaculture-and-fishing-industry-trends (accessed 17 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Fiskeridirektoratet. n.d. Oversikt over søknader om utviklingstillatelser. https://www.fiskeridir.no/Akvakultur/Tildeling-og-tillatelser/Saertillatelser/Utviklingstillatelser/Status-ja-nei-antall-og-biomasse (accessed 12 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Fløysand, A. & Jakobsen, S.-E. 2017. Industrial renewal: Narratives in play in the development of green technologies in the Norwegian salmon farming industry. Geographical Journal 183(2), 140–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia de Leaniz, C., Gutierrez Rabadan, C., Barrento, S.I., … Pavlidis, M. 2022. Addressing the welfare needs of farmed lumpfish: Knowledge gaps, challenges and solutions. Reviews in Aquaculture 14(1), 139–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gratacap, R.L., Wargelius, A., Edvardsen, R.B. & Houston, R.D. 2019. Potential of genome editing to improve aquaculture breeding and production. Trends in Genetics 35(9), 672–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GSI. 2021. Digital transformation in aquaculture: How salmon farmers are driving a digital revolution. https://globalsalmoninitiative.org/en/blog/digital-transformation-in-aquaculture-how-salmon-farmers-are-driving-a-digital-revolution/ (accessed 12 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Hansmeier, H., Schiller, K. & Rogge, K.S. 2021. Towards methodological diversity in sustainability transitions research? Comparing recent developments (2016–2019) with the past (before 2016). Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 38, 169–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartmann, D. 2014. Economic Complexity and Human Development: How Economic Diversification and Social Networks Affect Human Agency and Welfare. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203722084
   Google Scholar
• Heiberg, J. & Truffer, B. 2021. The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector. GEIST Working Paper Series 2021(09). https://ideas.repec.org/p/aoe/wpaper/2109.html
   Google Scholar
• Heiberg, J. & Truffer, B. 2022. Overcoming the harmony fallacy: How values shape the course of innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 42, 411–428.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heiberg, J., Truffer, B. & Binz, C. 2022. Assessing transitions through socio-technical configuration analysis – a methodological framework and a case study in the water sector. Research Policy 51(1): Article 104363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. & Lundvall, B.Å. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy 36(5), 680–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R. & Moodysson, J. 2013. Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies 20(2), 170–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miörner, J., Truffer, T., Binz, C., Heiberg, J. & Yap, X. 2022. Guidebook for Applying the Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis Method. https://geist-wp.com/guidebook-for-applying-the-socio-technical-configuration-analysis-method/ (accessed 16 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Myskja, B.K. & Myhr, A.I. 2020. Non-safety assessments of genome-edited organisms: Should they be included in regulation? Science and Engineering Ethics 26(5), 2601–2627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okoli, A.S., Blix, T., Myhr, A.I., Xu, W. & Xu, X. 2021. Sustainable use of CRISPR/Cas in fish aquaculture: The biosafety perspective. Transgenic Research 31(1), 1–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Overton, K., Dempster, T., Oppedal, F., Kristiansen, T.S., Gismervik, K. & Stien, L.H. 2019. Salmon lice treatments and salmon mortality in Norwegian aquaculture: A review. Reviews in Aquaculture 11(4), 1398–1417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. & Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6), 751–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plum, O. & Hassink, R. 2011. On the nature and geography of innovation and interactive learning: A case study of the biotechnology industry in the Aachen technology region, Germany. European Planning Studies 19(7), 1141–1163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Council of Norway. n.d. Gene editing to innovate Norwegian breeding industries. [project description] https://prosjektbanken.forskningsradet.no/en/project/FORISS/281928?Kilde=FORISS&distribution=Ar&chart=bar&calcType=funding&Sprak=no&sortBy=date&sortOrder=desc&resultCount=30&offset=0&TemaEmne.2=Mat+-+Bl%C3%A5gr%C3%B8nn&source=EU&projectId=606023Sprak=no&sortBy=date&sortOrder=desc&resultCount=30&offset=0&TemaEmne.2=Mat+-+Bl%C3%A5gr%C3%B8nn&source=EU&projectId=606023 (accessed 12 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Rosado, A. & Eriksson, D. 2022. Biosafety legislation and the regulatory status of the products of precision breeding in the Latin America and the Caribbean region. Plants, People, Planet 4(3), 214–31.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D.A., Krause, N.M., Freiling, I. & Brossard, D. 2021. What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(22): Article e2004835117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholten, V.E. & Blok, V. 2015. Foreword: Responsible innovation in the private sector. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15(2), 101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Shew, A.M., Nalley, L.L., Snell, H.A., Nayga, R.M. & Dixon, B.L. 2018. CRISPR versus GMOs: Public acceptance and valuation. Global Food Security 19, 71–80.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. 2011. Regional determinants of entrepreneurial activities – Theories and empirical evidence. Fritsch, M. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. Elgaronline. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936493.00007
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9), 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue, G. 2016. The EU legislation on ‘GMOs’ between nonsense and protectionism: An ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices. GM Crops & Food 8(1), 57–73.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taylor, C. 2017. From systemic exclusion to systemic inclusion: A critical look at museums. Journal of Museum Education 42(2), 155–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ter Wal, A.LJ., Alexy, O., Block, J. & Sandner, P.G. 2016. The best of both worlds: The benefits of open-specialized and closed-diverse syndication networks for new ventures’ success. Administrative Science Quarterly 61(3), 393–432. 7849
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapa, R.K., Iakovleva, T. & Foss, L. 2019. Responsible research and innovation: A systematic review of the literature and its applications to regional studies. European Planning Studies 27(12), 2470–2490.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Mierlo, B., Beers, P. & Hoes, A.-C. 2020. Inclusion in responsible innovation: Revisiting the desirability of opening up. Journal of Responsible Innovation 7(3), 361–383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veterinærinstituttet. 2021. Fiskehelserapporten 2020. Rapport 41a/2021. https://www.vetinst.no/rapporter-og-publikasjoner/rapporter/2021/fiskehelserapporten-2020 (accessed 12 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, R. (ed.) 2011. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.277758723
   Google Scholar
• Wargelius, A. 2019. Application of genome editing in aquatic farm animals: Atlantic salmon. Transgenic Research 28(2), 101–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Warnke, P., Koschatzky, K., Dönitz, E., Zenker, A., Stahlecker, T., Som, O. & Cuhls, K. 2016. Opening Up the Innovation System Framework Towards New Actors and Institutions. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers, Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis No. 49, https://publica-rest.fraunhofer.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/1e4ba2e9-c139-4941-baab-faf0abf9184c/content (accessed 16 March 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Witt, M.A. & Redding, G. 2009. Culture, meaning, and institutions: Executive rationale in Germany and Japan. Journal of International Business Studies 40(5), 859–885.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R. & Zhang, H. 2016. Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness 5(3), 116–123.
   Google Scholar
• Zyontz, S. 2019. Making the Cut: The Rate and Direction of CRISPR Innovation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/123571
   Google Scholar